Are AT&T Routers Blocking Access to a News Link About AT&T and Google?

[Dionysus]

Drudge is linking to this:
AT&T calls for FCC action on GOOGLE...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/360d7954-aa14-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

I'm getting a network link interruption error in my browser. Never seen that error before. I have AT&T DSL. Anyone else able to load it? Who's your ISP? This is why we need net neutrality! Imagine getting blocked trying to open RPF.

[evilfunnystuff]

verizon works for me



AT&T calls for FCC action on Google

By Paul Taylor in New York

Published: September 25 2009 22:09 | Last updated: September 25 2009 22:09

AT&T, the largest US telecommunications group, called on federal regulators to force Google, the internet search and advertising giant, to “play by the same rules as its competitors” and ensure that its Google Voice application does not block calls to some rural areas.

The call, which came in a strongly worded letter from AT&T to the Federal Communications Commission’s competition bureau was signed by Robert Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president for federal regulations. It marks a significant escalation in the dispute over Google Voice and proposed new rules on “net-neutrality.”
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Document: AT&T letter to FCC on Google Voice - Sep-25
In depth: Telecoms - Jun-22
Tech blog - Jul-26

The FCC is already investigating Apple’s decision to reject the Google Voice application for the iPhone which enables customers to send and receive calls from a single telephone number on multiple devices and access voice mail. AT&T is the exclusive provider for the iPhone in the US.

Last week, Julius Genachowski, FCC chairman, proposed new rules requiring operators to open their networks to any legitimate internet content or service without discrimination. If adopted, the move would be a victory for big internet companies at the expense of network operators.

AT&T and other traditional US carriers have argued that the existing net neutrality guidelines are sufficient and some have rejected the need to extend them to mobile services. Carriers argue that they want the flexibility of being able to protect their networks from bandwidth-hogging applications including video services.

In its letter on Friday, AT&T described Google as “one of the most troublesome trumpeters of so-called net-neutrality” regulation, but said it failed to abide by “level playing-field” principles “at least when it comes to its own services.”

AT&T noted that numerous press reports have suggested that Google “is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural areas.”

By blocking these calls, AT&T claimed that Google is able to reduce its access expenses while, “other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking” by a 2007 FCC ruling.

The dispute over Google Voice has at its core, an argument over whether Google Voice is a telecommunications service, and therefore subject to regulation or, as Google maintains, “an online software tool” and therefore outside the regulatory framework.

However AT&T contends that even if Google Voice is an application, it is still bound by the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement principles. ”To the extent ’net neutrality’ is animated by a concern about ostensible internet ’gatekeepers,’ that concern must necessarily apply to application, service, and content providers,” said Mr Quinn.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

[Captain Bryan]

I'm on Frontiernet, and I can't load it either.

[John E]

Its a network issue / no one is blocking them.

[Dionysus]

Its a network issue / no one is blocking them.

Yeah, it's an AT&T network issue. They're pissed off that google influenced the FCC to not allow them to take over the whole internet. This is retaliation.

[Liberty Rebellion]

UH, pretty sure ft.com is down and has nothing to do with ATT.

My trace routes doni't ever hit ATT and I can't get to ft.com

[John E]

Yeah, it's an AT&T network issue. They're pissed off that google influenced the FCC to not allow them to take over the whole internet. This is retaliation.

It's nothing of the sort ... do a trace route

Start -> Run -> Command [enter]
c:\tracert FT.com


I just did it and my request started timing at at the sites host. The traffic never touched ATT's network on my end. So how is ATT blocking them? Its conspiracy garbage like this that gives everyone a bad name. Don't jump to conclusions -- use solid reasoning and FACTS. If you dont have them, ask for help in getting them.

[FunkBuddha]

nevermind

[Liberty Rebellion]

Has nothing to do with ATT:

Tracing route to ft.com [62.25.101.84]
over a maximum of 30 hops:


8 20 ms 18 ms 19 ms dal-core-01.inet.qwest.net [67.14.2.53]
9 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms dap-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.225.49]
10 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms sl-st21-dal-15-1.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.137]

11 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms sl-crs2-fw-0-9-3-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.80
]
12 48 ms 46 ms 47 ms sl-crs2-dc-0-8-2-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.19.10
3]
13 47 ms 48 ms 49 ms sl-crs2-rly-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.19.2
20]
14 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms sl-crs2-pen-0-5-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.19.3
]
15 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms sl-bb21-tuk-11-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.20.13
9]
16 117 ms 118 ms 117 ms sl-bb21-lon-12-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.9.208
]
17 119 ms 119 ms 119 ms sl-bb23-lon-14-0.sprintlink.net [213.206.128.54]

18 118 ms 119 ms 118 ms sl-gw23-lon-15-0.sprintlink.net [213.206.128.63]

19 118 ms 118 ms 118 ms sl-energ59-226213-0.sprintlink.net [82.195.189.2
6]
20 119 ms 120 ms 120 ms ge0-1.hnr-2.ewfd.as5388.net [195.92.55.199]
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * ^C


Last hop:

https://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=195.92.55.199

FT.com = 62.25.101.84

https://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=62.25.101.84

It's either the FT server or a network issue on RIPE Network.

[FunkBuddha]

again from AT&T's route server

Tracing the route to ft.com (62.25.101.80)

1 white-dwarf.cbbtier3.att.net (12.0.1.1) [AS 7018] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
2 12.89.5.13 [AS 7018] 4 msec 8 msec 8 msec
3 cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.2.130) [MPLS: Label 16019 Exp 0] 8 msec
cr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.2.6) [MPLS: Label 16019 Exp 0] 8 msec
cr2.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.2.130) [MPLS: Label 16019 Exp 0] 8 msec
4 ggr3.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.131.5) 4 msec 4 msec 8 msec
5 sl-bb26-nyc-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.193) [AS 1239] 8 msec 8 msec 4 msec
6 sl-crs2-nyc-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.7.36) [AS 1239] 8 msec 8 msec 8 msec
7 sl-bb20-lon-4-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.165) [AS 1239] 72 msec 76 msec 72 msec
8 sl-gw11-lon-14-0-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.57) [AS 1239] 72 msec 76 msec 76 msec
9 sl-energ59-214891-0.sprintlink.net (82.195.189.22) [AS 1239] 76 msec 80 msec 76 msec
10 ge0-1.hnr-2.ewfd.as5388.net (195.92.55.199) [AS 5388] 76 msec 76 msec 80 msec
11 * *

dead at RIPE

[angelatc]

Drudge is linking to this:
AT&T calls for FCC action on GOOGLE...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/360d7954-aa14-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html

I'm getting a network link interruption error in my browser. Never seen that error before. I have AT&T DSL. Anyone else able to load it? Who's your ISP? This is why we need net neutrality! Imagine getting blocked trying to open RPF.

That's right. We need the government to decide which sites should be blocked. That way dangerous and bad sites will be blocked by all providers at once.

[Dionysus]

That's right. We need the government to decide which sites should be blocked. That way dangerous and bad sites will be blocked by all providers at once.

When and if that actually happens, I'll be against it. Much more likely now is the telcos trying to unfairly monopolize the internet.

[Dionysus]

It's nothing of the sort ... do a trace route

Start -> Run -> Command [enter]
c:\tracert FT.com


I just did it and my request started timing at at the sites host. The traffic never touched ATT's network on my end. So how is ATT blocking them? Its conspiracy garbage like this that gives everyone a bad name. Don't jump to conclusions -- use solid reasoning and FACTS. If you dont have them, ask for help in getting them.

Chill dude. Ma Bell is evil. It is obvious that they're going after google as a retaliatory strike. As for this website issue, I could be wrong, but I'm suspicious enough of Government Phones that I had to check it out. Even with the traceroutes, I'm actually not fully convinced, cause I distrust them that much. The telcos are a cartel, and they're totally in bed with the gov. I mean, we don't know fully what goes on in the network core. Remember when the international lines kept getting "cut by ships' anchors"??

[Liberty Rebellion]

Chill dude. Ma Bell is evil. It is obvious that they're going after google as a retaliatory strike. As for this website issue, I could be wrong, but I'm suspicious enough of Government Phones that I had to check it out. Even with the traceroutes, I'm actually not fully convinced, cause I distrust them that much. The telcos are a cartel, and they're totally in bed with the gov. I mean, we don't know fully what goes on in the network core. Remember when the international lines kept getting "cut by ships' anchors"??

Lol. There is no Internet conspiracy. The Internet is made up of a ton of private networks with their own BGP ASN's. I work for one and I work directly with our peer transport ASN's (private businesses).

Why would ATT block access to FT.com for an article about google? Wouldn't they block google?

The ISP I work for peer's directly with google and, you'll be happy to know, we dropped all of our AT&T circuits as soon as we migrated to our own national backbone.

[Dionysus]

Lol. There is no Internet conspiracy. The Internet is made up of a ton of private networks with their own BGP ASN's. I work for one and I work directly with our peer transport ASN's (private businesses).

Why would ATT block access to FT.com for an article about google? Wouldn't they block google?

The ISP I work for peer's directly with google and, you'll be happy to know, we dropped all of our AT&T circuits as soon as we migrated to our own national backbone.

Okay, I think you guys are right about ft.com, thanks for the info. As for no internet conspiracy, don't be so sure. They almost certainly have internet ECHELON. I mean, read the friggin' anti-privacy bills they're passing!

Ever notice the clustering of DNS root servers around DC?

[Dionysus]

Lol. There is no Internet conspiracy. The Internet is made up of a ton of private networks with their own BGP ASN's. I work for one and I work directly with our peer transport ASN's (private businesses).

Why would ATT block access to FT.com for an article about google? Wouldn't they block google?

The ISP I work for peer's directly with google and, you'll be happy to know, we dropped all of our AT&T circuits as soon as we migrated to our own national backbone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Read that before you lol.

[IPSecure]

Handy Tool: http://internetpulse.net/

[Liberty Rebellion]

Okay, I think you guys are right about ft.com, thanks for the info. As for no internet conspiracy, don't be so sure. They almost certainly have internet ECHELON. I mean, read the friggin' anti-privacy bills they're passing!

Ever notice the clustering of DNS root servers around DC?

The Internet ECHELON is CALEA (I think. Haven't read up on ECHELON in a while)

Don't even get me started on that.

I should have been more specific: this particular instance of a server/network issue is not an Internet conspiracy.

Traceroutes are pretty reliable for the path your packets are taking unless the subnet you are on is being routed assymetrically by your ISP and you also don't see the transport (Layer 1 fiber optic) & Layer 2 nodes along the way.


If traces weren't somewhat reliable then I would never be able to fix a network issue with our transit peers, let alone diagnose where the problem lies. :D

EDIT: CALEA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

[Liberty Rebellion]

Handy Tool: http://internetpulse.net/

Thanks for that. I was looking for that website the other day, but couldn't remember the URL and couldn't come up with any search terms to get it to come up on google.

Bookmarked it here at work

[Dionysus]

EDIT: CALEA is for VoIP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

That, plus G20 equals, I need my mommy.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Liberty Rebellion]

We all know the more the FCC interferes in the market by forcing net neutrality on providers their will be consequences.

It is no different than states mandating certain coverages in basic health care policies. There will be an adverse market effect.

I can understand why people are supporting net neutrality because it's always the same bait.

Net neutrality is not the solution to a lack of competition in the broadband market.

Agreed.

More commentary later...